[CRISP-TEAM] Interim version, not yet checked visually in Word...

Thu Jan 15 06:43:03 CET 2015

Hi,

Thanks Michael and Bill for your great work. 

I haven't yet had the time to check that all the correct text has been included. But as time is short, here are a few initial comments more editorial in nature.

However, I do raise one comment which is more than editorial.

> IV.A.   Description of operational requirements ...
> A new agreement specifying IANA operation of the Internet Number Registries can be established well before the September 2015 transition target, as we propose to simply reconcile the contracting party with the policy authority, without changing service levels or reporting.

I believe that it should say that a new agreement "should" be established before the transition target. I realize this has implications, but I thought we had agreed on including language to the effect that this agreement should be in place before the transition. But we can discuss this.

I have made the changes directly in the document for easier review.

Thanks,
Nurani
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: CRISP Team Proposal-BW5-nn.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 153088 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://www.nro.net/pipermail/crisp/attachments/20150115/9ab03d7b/CRISPTeamProposal-BW5-nn.doc>
-------------- next part --------------

On 15 jan 2015, at 03:05, Bill Woodcock <woody at pch.net> wrote:

> ?not including a few still-outstanding edits, and I haven?t produced a redline yet, but wanted to get this out before I went to a meeting.  Back in three hours.
> 
> Please give this a once-over from the top, using the clean PDF, and let me know if you see formatting, punctuation, grammar, or harmonization problems.
> 
> Also, please let me know if you have still-outstanding changes, other than those I?m reproducing below.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
>                                -Bill
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> <CRISP Team Proposal-BW5.pdf><CRISP Team Proposal-BW5.doc>
> 
> 
> ---
> OLD:
> 
> In the global discussions at <ianaxfer at nro.net>, several issues received close attention andprovoked significant discussion. These issues included:
> 
> ?     Composition of Review Committee
> ?     Details of the agreement, including its term and termination
>     conditions
> ?     Intellectual property rights of the data and trademarks
>     associated with the IANA function
> 
> Comments mainly focused on clarification of details of these issues. Support was expressed by several people on the ianaxfer at nro.net mailing list on the final, agreed elements of the proposal listed in Section III.
> 
> There was clear agreement from the global community on positions regarding each of these issues, as reflected in the content of the current proposal. The CRISP team believes therefore that the current proposal fully reflects the consensus of the global numbering community.
> 
> 
> NEW:
> 
> In the global discussions at <ianaxfer at nro.net>, several issues received close attention andprovoked significant discussion. These issues included:
> 
> ?     Composition of Review Committee
> ?     Details of the agreement, including its term and termination
>     conditions,dispute resolution and the need of SLA text to be
>     submitted
> ?     Intellectual property rights of the data and trademarks
>     associated with the IANA function
> 
> Comments mainly focused on clarification of details of these issues. Support was expressed by several people on the ianaxfer at nro.net mailing list on the final, agreed elements of the proposal listed in Section III.
> 
> There was clear agreement from the global community on positions regarding each of these issues, as reflected in the content of the current proposal. The CRISP team believes therefore that the current proposal fully reflects the consensus of the global numbering community.
> ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________
> 
> X.III.3.ix.  Intellectual Property Rights and Rights Over Data
> 
> Principle:
> 
> The Internet number community must have free unlimited access to all
> intellectual property rights which are necessary for, or which relate
> to, the continuing provision of the IANA services. Such rights must also
> be available freely, without restriction, to any successor operator of
> the IANA Numbering services.
> 
> The details and expectations of the RIR community on this issue are set
> out in III.A.2.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________
> 
> 
> 
> I like the general idea of having III.A.3.ix defer to III.A.2 for details about which types of intellectual property should be assigned to which rights holders, so there is no inconsistency between the sections.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________
> 
> 
> 
>> Section I.B: "The RIRs, not-for-profit membership-based
>> organizations, manage ...".  This is missing the "with elected governing
>> boards" that was present in another section.  This section is also
>> missing the definitions of "NRO" and "NRO EC" that I suggested should be
>> moved to this section, and that I thought received agreement.  See the
>> email thread "Move description of RIRs, NRO, and NRO EC to section I.A"
>> in which I provided a redline file draft-apb-NROEC-RIR.20150113.1.docx
>> with suggested edits.
>> 
>> Section III.A.2: The sentence "It is the preference of the RIR community
>> that all relevant parties agree to these expectations as part of the
>> transition" appears twice, buth in a paragraph near the middle, and in a
>> sentence at the end of the last paragraph.
>> 
>> Section III.A.3: "It is expected that RIR staff, as the contractual
>> party of this agreement, will draft the specific language of this
>> agreement." I thought we agreed that "the RIRs", not "RIR staff", would
>> draft the contract.  Also, could we say "contract" instead of
>> "agreement" here?
>> 
>> * Section III.A.4: I think we agreed that "The RIRs shall establish a
>> Review Committee".
>> 
>> 
>> I also found several changes that I proposed, that received consensus, but that have not been integrated.  I did not look for similar cases on behalf of others.
>> 
>> * Email thread "Document status inside the document", my redline file
>> draft-apb-STATUS.20150113.1.redline.docx from the email message
>> with these headers:
>> 
>> Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2015 12:36:28 +0200
>> From: Alan Barrett <apb at cequrux.com>
>> To: crisp at nro.net
>> Subject: Re: [CRISP-TEAM] Document status inside the document
>> 
>> * Email thread "Change NRO EC to RIRs", my suggestions in the message
>> with these email headers,
>> Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2015 11:25:27 +0200
>> From: Alan Barrett <apb at cequrux.com>
>> To: crisp at nro.net
>> Subject: [CRISP-TEAM] Change NRO EC to RIRs
>> 
>> as modified by Paul Rendek's commens in this email message:
>> 
>> Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2015 10:54:39 +0000
>> From: Paul Rendek <rendek at ripe.net>
>> To: crisp at nro.net
>> Subject: Re: [CRISP-TEAM] Change NRO EC to RIRs
>> 
>> * Emaill thread "Move description of RIRs, NRO, and NRO EC to section I.A",
>> my redline file draft-apb-NROEC-RIR.20150113.1.docx from this email
>> message:
>> 
>> Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2015 12:04:15 +0200
>> From: Alan Barrett <apb at cequrux.com>
>> To: crisp at nro.net
>> Subject: [CRISP-TEAM] Move description of RIRs, NRO, and NRO EC to
>>  section I.A
>> 
>> modified by changing "associations" to "organizations".
>> 
>> 
>> Finally, I think we still need to update section VI.I to ensure that it
>> captures all recent discussions.  See items 9 and 10 in this email message:
>> 
>> Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2015 10:26:00 +0200
>> From: Alan Barrett <apb at cequrux.com>
>> To: crisp at nro.net
>> Subject: [CRISP-TEAM] Editorial suggestions
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CRISP mailing list
> CRISP at nro.net
> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/crisp